| American
Sociological Association Section on Sociology of Religion |
|
|
Volume VII, Number 2
Winter 2001 Contents: Graduate Education Officers of the Section Chair: Council: Graduate
Education in Sociology Nancy Ammerman and Robert
Woodberry In May of 2000, the ASA
Section on Sociology of Religion mailed a survey to all 167 students who were
then members. We received completed returns from 62 of them (37%). These
respondents may not be strictly representative of sociology of religion graduate
students in general. For instance, 62.1% had already had their dissertation
proposal approved, and 19.9% were actually finished. Three quarters are writing
a dissertation in Sociology of Religion (or plan to). Thus our respondents seem
to be serious about the field and relatively far along in their programs, as we
might expect of students who join the section. It is also possible that the most
active students in the most active departments were more likely to complete the
survey, so that our statistics of activity and resources may be inflated - a
guess, not something we can tell for sure. What we do know is that these results
represent advanced students who are deeply enough involved in the field to join
the Section and respond to a survey. What sorts of people are they?
There are almost as many women (48%) as men, and the number of non-white
respondents is over one quarter (28.3%). About half (49%) majored in sociology
during their undergraduate education. Almost half (45.2%) came to sociology
after having a previous career: nearly half of these in either religion (e.g.,
pastors and priests) or social work. Sociology of religion graduate students
also claim a wide variety of religious traditions (probably a broader variety
than was true of previous generations of sociologists of religion): Eighteen
percent are Catholic; 21.3% Mainline Protestant; 23% Evangelical or Mormon;
26.2% non-religious, agnostics, or atheists; and 18% belong to religious
traditions other than Christianity (e.g, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.). So what has their graduate
school experience been like? Eighty-one percent have been able to take at least
one course in sociology of religion. A similar number (82%) say they have at
least one professor in their department who specializes in the field, and 81.7%
said their library's holdings on religion were "good" or better. The
same proportion (81%) say they have at least one student colleague in their
department who is interested in the field. Over a third (36%) of the respondents
had all of these basic elements available, and no one lacked them all. In fact,
all but two students reported having two or more of these basic program
structures in place. The students who have made it to the point of joining the
Section (and who completed the survey) have at least minimal support in their
departments for their work. However, there were limits, as
well. Nearly half (43.5%) reported that they could not take comprehensive exams
in the sociology of religion. Sixty-one percent do not know of a funded research
project on religion by faculty at their university. Many respondents also
reported little contact with peers outside their departments. A third reported
no contact with local peers interested in religion, and 48.4% had no contact
with peers at other schools. Obviously not all programs are
alike. Compared to those in private and public secular universities, students in
universities that are religiously-affiliated reported that they have more
courses available, more local student colleagues, and more professors who are
interested in the study of religion. With all that, it is not surprising that
they are also more likely to participate in informal colloquia focussed on
sociology of religion. However, public university students report levels of
support and encouragement for participating in professional meetings equal to
those at religiously-affiliated schools. Most students (56.1%) report
that their departments are at least minimally encouraging of their research on
religion. However, forty-four percent report that their professors are either
indifferent (31.6%), occasionally hostile (10.5%) or actively so (1 student).
Attitudes are best at religiously affiliated institutions and worst in public
universities. Although only 14% of the respondents are in religiously affiliated
schools, half (54.3%) of those who report faculties who actively encourage
religion research come from these schools. All faculty hostility reported
occurred at state universities (where 20% report some hostility and 37.1% report
indifference). Reports of attitudes of fellow
students are similar. Overall 43.9% reported that their peers are indifferent or
occasionally hostile. Again the situation is less positive at public
universities. Students' perceptions of their peers' attitudes are highly
correlated with their perceptions of faculty attitudes. It is difficult to discern,
but these reports may reflect a sorting process. Students who are atheist,
agnostic, or non-religious perceive their peer's attitudes as more negative.
Similarly, those whose religious faith is least important to them perceive both
their professors and peers as less encouraging.1 Among those who
report a current affiliation, the specific type of affiliation has little impact
on their perceptions of other's attitudes toward researching religion. Whether
respondents are Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, or Other makes little
difference. Most individual-level
differences disappear when we control for the type of program in which people
are enrolled (i.e., state, private secular, or religiously affiliated); but
there is one exception. Again, non-religious respondents, no matter what sort of
program they are in, perceive other students' attitudes as more negative. This
strongly suggests that there may be specific university sociology departments
toward which non-religiously-committed students migrate or student cultures within
departments that discourage research on religion. This, in turn, suggests that
religious commitments may influence where respondents chose to do their graduate
work. We wondered if the factors
that influence attitudes toward the study of religion are different in sociology
programs than in other majors and at state and private secular universities as
opposed to religious schools. Thus we repeated the analysis selecting only
respondents in sociology programs at state and private secular universities (N =
46).2 Again, perceptions of the climate of the department is not a
matter of individual differences. Rather, it is strongly related to the
resources actually available to students. That is, reported faculty attitudes
toward religion as an object of study are less encouraging in programs that also
have fewer resources - fewer courses, fewer faculty, less research, fewer
student peers, fewer library resources.3 As with all correlations, this
one can't show causality, but it does tell us that there are real differences
among students in the sociology of religion. Many have access to relatively rich
resources for study and perceive their departments as encouraging places in
which to do their work. A significant minority, however, lack many of the
resources that would make their graduate education complete and work in an
environment where there is little faculty or peer encouragement for their
work. If you have ideas for how to
address these issues, we invite a dialogue. Address comments to the Section
Listserv at religion@listserv.asanet.org
. 1In
all regressions we used ordered logit because the dependent variables have 4 or
5 response options. We chose a two-tailed significance level of .1 because we
have a maximum of 62 cases. However, in virtually all case the results we
describe are significant at the .05 level. 2In all the
following analyses we controlled for the difference between state and private
universities. 3Factors
were generally consistent if we further restricted the sample to only sociology
programs at state universities, although at state universities the importance of
respondent's religion had a stronger positive influence on perception of
students attitudes, and lack of resources had a weaker negative impact on
faculty attitudes. RELIGION
AND SOCIAL THEORY IN ASIA Contemporary sociologists of
religion--with a few notable exceptions--have paid little attention to religious
phenomena outside of the Judeo-Christian world. Religions in the great Asian
civilizations have escaped much recent analysis except by a handful of
sociologists. This neglect is understandable. Asian languages are a formidable
barrier, and access is difficult from North American and European universities.
But the consequence is that the sociology of religion is still too parochial
when measured against the full range of religious phenomena. We (as a
discipline) know more about minor sects and cults in North America and Europe
than about religions with hundreds of millions of practitioners in Asia. Our
best theories need to be tested in Asian contexts. One reason to do so is that
the range of religious belief and practice, and of religion-state interactions,
is much wider in Asia than in contemporary Western societies. In East Asia one
can observe worship of the most primitive spirits known to the history of
religions, and sects which have merged the major world faiths into a single
system. Some worshippers petition Chinese gods who dress and act like mandarins
(and prefer gifts of incense and "gold" bars), while others give
offerings to a slovenly god-saint who rejects all hierarchy (and prefers gifts
of brandy). One can observe a god writing moralistic messages to the world
through an inspired devotee, while next door the gods speak about everyday urban
troubles through obscure poems selected by divination. Exchanges between gods
and humans are often earthy and materialistic in Asia, yet there are worshippers
who seem to seek justice for others without reward for themselves. Historical
competition among faiths has led to mutual copying of belief and practice, the
merging of deities, struggles between religious and secular groups over control
of the state, resurgence of religions with the decline of ideology, and other
phenomena hardly studied in our discipline. The empirical and theoretical
opportunities and challenges in Asia are everywhere. But where are the
sociologists of religion? The obvious solution: more
Asian sociologists of religion, in Asia. But for various reasons, most of these
societies produce few studies of religion which address current theoretical
issues in the sociology of religion. The reasons deserve another essay.
Meanwhile, what is to be done? Graduate students: if you are
theoretically ambitious, read the few classics (not Weber: I’m talking about
works such as C.K. Yang’s Religion in Chinese Society, published in
1961), and then explore the more recent literatures in anthropology and the
history of Asian religions for challenges. Supervisors: tolerate proposals to
apply theory to Asian cases, even through secondary analysis. Develop links with
anthropologists and historians who work on religion and culture in Asia. Invite
them to give seminars and collaborate on supervisions. Try to collaborate on
papers. Try to get them to take your theories seriously. Good luck! I welcome comments on the
(admittedly provocative) remarks above. Graeme Lang, NEW
ASA SCHEDULE BENEFITS RELIGION SECTION The decision by ASA to move
from a 5-day meeting to a 4-day one has two important benefits for the Religion
Section. Most immediately, the Sections that will be scheduled on the last
meeting day in 2001 have been awarded a "combat bonus." In addition to
our regular allotment of sessions, we have been assigned one extra time slot for
this year. We are at work planning a special invited panel presentation to
supplement the three paper sessions and the roundtables we had already
announced. The other benefit is simply the expectation that a shorter
meeting time will mean more participation on that fourth day. It also means that
our Section meetings will never be more than two days following the close of the
Association for the Sociology of Religion meetings, and will overlap with those
meetings or be immediately following in three years out of four. We
look forward to seeing you in Anaheim for a full day of Religion Section
activities on Tuesday, August 21! CANDIDATES
FOR SECTION OFFICES SECTION OFFICE: Chair-elect Michele Dillon PRESENT POSITION: Associate
Professor of Sociology, Yale University (1993-present). Edward A. Tiryakian PRESENT POSITION: Professor,
Department of Sociology, Duke University (1965- present). SECTION OFFICE:
Secretary-Treasurer Bryan T. Froehle PRESENT POSITION: Research
Associate Professor, Georgetown University and Executive Director, Center for
Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. William Silverman PRESENT POSITION: Grants
Administrator, Federation of Organizations for the New York State Mentally
Disabled, Inc. (1998 - present.) [Federation is a social work agency that
provides various social services in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, and Rockland
Counties, New York State.] Harriet Hartman PRESENT POSITION: Associate
Professor of Sociology, Rowan University (2000 - ). William A. Mirola PRESENT POSITION: Assistant
Professor, Marian College, Indianapolis (1995-present). Daniel V. A. Olson PRESENT POSITION: Associate
Professor, Indiana University South Bend (1995-Present). Milagros Peña PRESENT POSITION:
Associate Professor, University of Florida (1999-present).
Society for the International Sociology of Religion (SISR) The 26th SISR conference will take place at Ixtapan de la Sal, Mexico from 20th to 24th August 2001. The general theme is Interpreting Religion Today: Competing Processes and Paradigms. Plenary sessions will focus on two general topics: religion, violence and social solidarity, religion and freedom. For all information about the conference, please contact the General Secretary as follows: Louise Fontaine (SISR) Telephone: +1 902 769-2114,
ext.: 205 Information is also available on the SISR website: http://www.sisr.org/. The deadline for submitting proposals for papers and/or sessions is 1 February 2001.
Nominations for awards may be made by any member of the Section or by publishers. Authors are welcome to submit their own work. All nominated authors will be notified of their nominations by the Award Committee chair and must be members of the Section (or join) to remain in contention for the awards. Book Award |
|
Return to Section Home Page Return to ASA Home Page Webmaster: Scott Thumma <sthumma@hartsem.edu>
|
|